The White House Legislative Recommendations: National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence and Federal Preemption of State AI Laws

Introduction

On March 20, 2026, the White House released its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (“Framework”),¹ outlining legislative recommendations for Congress to establish a unified federal approach to AI regulation. The Framework builds on prior executive actions, including the December 2025 Executive Order (the “Executive Order”) and the Trump administration’s “America’s AI Action Plan,” and it proposes that Congress adopt legislation broadly preempting state AI laws deemed to impose “undue burdens.”² This Alert summarizes the Framework’s key provisions, analyzes their potential impact on state laws, and highlights considerations for healthcare and life sciences stakeholders navigating the evolving regulatory landscape. While the Framework does not itself change the current legal status of the Executive Order, it signals increased policy focus and may prompt further agency action.

Executive Order and Prior Federal Efforts

Congress has repeatedly declined to enact comprehensive federal preemption of state AI laws, including rejecting such an approach in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the National Defense Authorization Act. States have continued to enact and enforce a wide range of AI-related laws, from statutes imposing algorithmic accountability (e.g., Colorado, California, Texas, Utah) to privacy laws and sector-specific requirements, thereby creating what the administration asserts is “a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes” that makes compliance more challenging.³

In response, the Executive Order asserted broad federal authority to preempt state AI laws and established an “AI Litigation Task Force” to challenge state laws on constitutional grounds, including preemption and the Dormant Commerce Clause. The Executive Order also directed federal agencies to issue policy statements, initiate proceedings to clarify federal preemption under existing laws (e.g., Section 5 of the FTC Act), and condition federal funding on state compliance with federal AI policy. The Framework goes beyond just providing a standard under which to assert preemption; it sets forth a comprehensive vision for a federal regulatory standard governing AI and its relationship to state authorities, addressing issues ranging from child protection and community safeguards to intellectual property, free speech, innovation, and workforce development. The Framework aims to establish not only a unified national standard, but also a broad set of principles and requirements for the development and deployment of AI across sectors.

Key Provisions of the Framework

The Framework is organized around several core policy objectives, each with implications for federal and state regulation of AI:

Protecting Children and Empowering Parents

• Strengthen protections for children and victims of deepfake abuse, building on prior initiatives like the Take It Down Act.
• Equip parents with tools to manage minors’ privacy, screen time, exposure to content, and account controls.
• Require privacy-protective age-assurance for AI platforms accessed by minors.
• Mandate features to reduce risks of sexual exploitation and self-harm.
• Apply existing child privacy protections to AI systems, including limits on data collection and targeted advertising.
• Avoid ambiguous standards or liability that could lead to excessive litigation.
• Preserve states’ authority to enforce child protection laws, including prohibitions on AI-generated child sexual abuse material.

Safeguarding and Strengthening American Communities

• Protect residential ratepayers from increased electricity costs due to AI data centers.
• Streamline federal permitting to accelerate AI infrastructure and enhance grid reliability.
• Expand law enforcement efforts against AI-enabled impersonation scams targeting vulnerable populations.
• Ensure national security agencies have technical capacity to assess frontier AI models.
• Support small businesses with grants, tax incentives, and technical assistance for AI adoption.

Respecting Intellectual Property Rights and Supporting Creators

• Allow courts to resolve whether AI training on copyrighted material constitutes fair use.
• Consider licensing frameworks for rights holders to negotiate compensation from AI providers, without antitrust liability.
• Establish federal protections against unauthorized commercial use of AI-generated digital replicas, with exceptions for expressive works.
• Monitor copyright precedents and assess the need for further legislative action.

Preventing Censorship and Protecting Free Speech

• Prohibit federal agencies from coercing technology providers to prohibit, compel, or alter content based on partisan or ideological agendas.
• Provide Americans effective means to seek redress for agency censorship on AI platforms.

Enabling Innovation and Ensuring American AI Dominance

• Create regulatory sandboxes to foster AI innovation.
• Make federal datasets accessible in AI-ready formats for model training.
• Avoid new federal rulemaking bodies for AI, and instead favor sector-specific regulation through existing agencies and industry-led standards.

Educating Americans and Developing an AI-Ready Workforce

• Integrate AI training into education and workforce programs through non-regulatory methods.
• Expand federal study of AI-driven workforce realignment.
• Enhance land-grant institutions’ capabilities for technical assistance and AI youth development.

Establishing a Federal Policy Framework and Preempting Cumbersome State AI Laws

• Preempt state AI laws imposing undue burdens to ensure a “minimally burdensome” national standard.
• Preserve state police powers for laws of general applicability, including zoning, consumer protection, and state AI use and procurement.
• Limit preemption to areas suited for federal regulation or aligned with national AI strategy.
• Prevent states from regulating use of AI for activity that would be lawful if performed without AI.
• Prevent states from regulating AI development or penalizing developers for third-party unlawful conduct.

Legal and Practical Implications

The release of the Framework does not alter the current legal analysis or immediate implications of the Executive Order: state AI laws remain in effect unless and until Congress enacts new legislation or agencies or other stakeholders succeed in legal challenges to state laws. However, the Framework may increase pressure on federal agencies to implement the directives of the Executive Order and offers a more detailed articulation of the administration’s policy priorities and intended regulatory approach.

The Framework’s call for legislative action, including the preemption of “unduly burdensome” state AI laws, if enacted, would mark a significant shift toward a unified national standard for AI regulation.  To the extent the concepts in the Framework are enacted into law, state laws targeting algorithmic discrimination, transparency, and accountability could be preempted.

While the Framework would preserve state police powers and authority over child protection, fraud, consumer protection, zoning, and state government use of AI, it seeks to limit state regulation of AI development and use where it would conflict with federal deregulatory strategy. The Executive Order and Framework signal aggressive federal efforts to challenge state AI laws through litigation, new agency actions, and funding restrictions. The viability of these legal theories (particularly under the Dormant Commerce Clause and Section 5 of the FTC Act) remains uncertain and is likely to face substantial resistance from states and stakeholders. The Framework may also embolden private litigants or sympathetic states to challenge state AI laws, with the possibility of federal government intervention.

Healthcare and life sciences stakeholders should closely monitor developments, as the Framework’s recommendations, if followed, may impact the validity of state laws governing AI use in healthcare (e.g., algorithmic bias, transparency, privacy, mental health chatbots). Compliance strategies for AI-enabled products and services must be nimble to accommodate diverging state and federal requirements. As these recommendations are not yet binding law, and the legal durability of executive actions remains uncertain, stakeholders should remain vigilant, monitor legislative and litigation developments, and be prepared to adapt compliance strategies as the regulatory environment evolves.

Ropes & Gray continues to monitor developments related to state and federal AI regulations, including through its Health AI Atlas and Standing Orders, Local Rules, and Decisions on the Use of AI tracker. If you have any questions, please contact your advisor at Ropes & Gray.